Talk:Ladakh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleLadakh is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 26, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 9, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 26, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 14, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2020[edit]

Add the following to the end of the 1st para inside the "Union territory of Ladakh" subsection of "History" section:

The demand for Ladakh as separate Union Territory (UT) was first raised by the parliamentarian Kushok Bakula Rinpoche around 1955, which was later carrried forward by another parliamentarian Thupstan Chhewang.[1] former Jammu and Kashmir state use to obtain large amount of annual funds from the union government based on the large geographical area of the Ladakh comprising 65% of total area of that state, but Ladakh was allocated only 2% of the total state budget based on the relative population size.[1] Within the first year of formation of Ladakh as separate UT, the annual budget allocation has increased 4 times from INR57 crore to INR232 crore.[1] 58.182.176.169 (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Added. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Ladakh is not Kashmir[edit]

Dear editors, the lead section says " and constituting a part of the larger region of Kashmir, while the refs haven't stated any such thing. LearnIndology (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a complicated issue. "Kashmir" has two different definitions: the historically and geographically accurate one, which is the Kashmir Valley (aka "Kashmir proper"), and the nowadays more common one, introduced under British rule, which is the entire region administered either directly by the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir or one of its vassal states (such as Hunza). This sentence in the article is using the latter definition, and in that sense it's an uncontroversial statement: I don't think there's any doubt as to the fact that Ladakh was ruled by the Dogras.M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 12:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Ladakh may have been called Kashmir by foreigners who had no knowledge about the region, but today it is not part of so called Kashmir, hence doesn't make sense in article. Apart from that, the very opening line says which has been the subject of dispute between India, Pakistan, and China since 1947. Dispute is indeed there, but that is not face of the state. So my recommendation is to shift that line somewhere down in lead section. LearnIndology (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
It seems like nobody have problem with the proposed changes. I will edit as proposed by tomorrow. In case if anyone opposes please do reply before I change it. LearnIndology (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@LearnIndology: This is the phrasing in all subregions of Kashmir per a WT:INDIA and WT:PAK consensus. Please don't change it. Imtiaz is correct. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Then it needs to be changed. Because calling Jammu and Ladakh as "Kashmir" is like calling Punjab and Tibet as "Kashmir" which is quite absurd. Mistakes committed by Britishers should not be continued atleast on Wikipedia. See this article [1] These silly mistakes should not be repeated on Wikipedia. It is the time we change it. LearnIndology (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Why don't you advertise in both WT:INDIA and WT:PAK, then start an RfC, advertise that in various noticeboards, and if you receive a consensus, ask an uninvolved admin or closer, to close it after one month, after which you may change it. Be warned, it will receive a strong oppose from me, and very likely from all the people who supported the current consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

See, for example, Talk:Kamala_Harris#RfC:_Should_Kamala_Harris_be_described_as_'African_American'_in_the_lead? for an RfC which is completing one month today and an admin is looking to close it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I note that Gilgit-Baltistan is considered part of "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir", rather than "Pakistan-occupied Ladakh", by India, which says something about how non-Indian sources aren't the only ones to use "Kashmir" in this sense. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Touché! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Gilgit Baltistan was called Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir by Indian government, not Pakistan occupied Kashmir. See this[2], and Ladakh has been included as a part of GB. See this[3]. So calling Ladakh as part of Kashmir is laughable as well as absurd. See how much Ladakhis hate Kashmiris[4] LearnIndology (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
India's Minister of State for External Affairs is apparently unaware of that pronouncement of his career bureaucrat, for he said in the Upper house of India's parliament: "Government is aware that some of the proposed projects under China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) are in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK), ..." (see here) But those are in Gilgit and Baltistan, not Azad Kashmir. I suggest you pursue the RfC option, but not waste more time here arguing without evidence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The answer given by M. J. AKBAR clearly states the official stand of Indian govt on POJK:

Pakistan is in illegal and forcible occupation of parts of Indian territory in Jammu and Kashmir since 1947. Government’s principled and consistent position is that the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir, which includes the regions of Gilgit and Baltistan, is an integral part of India.

And the maps released by Indian govt [5] clearly shows both Azad Kashmir and GB as part of India, and GB as part of Ladakh. I don't know what more evidence you need.LearnIndology (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Changed it to Kashmir region. Now, can we go back to doing something more important than arguing about words? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but I didn't understood. I am arguing that Ladakh shouldn't be called Kashmir and the lead line about dispute should be bought down a bit in lead section.LearnIndology (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
What is it you don't understand about taking it to an RfC? You have just concluded a song and dance at Talk:India and you have a few hundred edits. Please study assiduously WP:Main article fixation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to article[edit]

To add to this article: information about the China-India border conflict that is taking place in Ladakh in September 2020. Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done, there are multiple articles about that very topic. Prolix 💬 12:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Please don't be obnoxious with your use of "red X" symbol. If there are "multiple articles" about this very topic, why, after reading and rereading the article, can one not find Wikilinks to those articles (including doing CTRL-F searches for both "dispute" and "China")? The solution is, clearly, to add an easy-to-find Wikilink to one or more of these articles to the lead paragraph, where people will be looking for it, in the passage that reads, "which has been the subject of dispute between India, Pakistan, and China." I trust you will take care of this. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The "red X" symbol is used to deny unreasonable edit requests such as yours. Wikipedia is not google, instead of wasting your time trying to CTRL-F your way to articles about the border dispute you could've gone to Google and found multiple articles about said topics: Sino-Indian border dispute, 2020 China–India skirmishes, Line of Actual Control. This article is meant to be a detailed description of the UT and its culture and not a repository of links to the various geopolitical issues plaguing the region. Prolix 💬 08:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"Little Thibet" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Little Thibet. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20#Little Thibet until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus based language and infobox maps[edit]

The language in the lead and the maps are based on a long-drawn and hard-won consensus: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_69#A_proposal_for_Kashmir-related_pages_on_this_notable_day_for_India_and_Pakistan and Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_69#Uniform_format_for_infobox_of_Kashmir-related_first-order_division_articles achieved with inputs from editors from WikiProjects India and Pakistan and half a dozen administrators in the first link and continuing with three in the second. I am sorry, but we cannot have editors altering these maps, or as it now seems, highlighting one first-order subdivision, and leaving the others in the dark. These subdivisions are those of the countries that administer a disputed region, i.e. Kashmir, not intrinsic to the region itself. I would like to request editors not to tinker with either the text or the map in any fashion. If everyone begins to look for their own special tweak, then we won't have any consensus at all. I'm on vacation until mid-February 2021 but am responding nonetheless because if I don't we'll have much more to alter and to correct in three month's time. I hope others watching the article will maintain its consensus language and maps. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

"Ladakh and Baltistan" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ladakh and Baltistan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 30#Ladakh and Baltistan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 05:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the transliteration and pronunciation to be used in the lead[edit]

Creating this section because this has become a mildly contentious issue. I believe the page should use either a Hindi or Ladakhi transliteration simply because the first is an official language of the region and the second is a widely spoken language in the region. Fowler&fowler believes it should be Persian that plays this role since that's the language the word originated from. Why Persian should be used instead of languages actually used in the region I am not sure. Since this is not how it is done on any other page. Pulling from the argument I made in my edit summary, both 'India' and 'Hindustan' are words originated from Greek and Persian respectively, but that doesn't mean we use those languages in the lead section of India's wiki page. Thus, I create this section to discuss the various arguments regarding this topic. Prolix 💬 19:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

All of them are undue for the lead. I moved Fowler&fowler's contribution to the Name section. What would be useful in the lead is an IPA transcription. Care to provide it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3's edit makes sense (to me). The Persian belongs in an etymology (or name) section and only IPA should go in the lead. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you K3. As I say in my most recent edit summary, I was going to make the same edit as you just did, but the ec's became tiresome. Will give you the OED and Webster's Unabridged pronuns in a minute which someone can IPA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Websters: "Ladakh (Geographical Entry) \lə-ˈdäk\", Merriam-Webster's Unabridged (on line), retrieved 7 December 2020 (subscription required)
OED: "Ladakhi (n) pronunciation/ləˈdɑːki/", Oxford English Dictionary (on line), retrieved 7 December 2020 (subscription required) Could someone convert it to IPA please? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all, adding an IPA and moving the etymology to the Names section is probably the best solution as of now. However I still wonder, what is not undue in the lead? I understand the nature of this article makes it harder to implement any changes without creating some sort of dispute but one would assume that at least a Ladakhi IPA ([lad̪ɑks]) could be included in the lead since it is the primary language of the region. Prolix 💬 19:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
If the best argument you can think of is that something is "official", it is certain to be UNDUE, not only for the lead, but for the entire Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3, that is not the argument I am making, how would Ladakhi be undue? It is the language of the region and therefore merits inclusion right? Prolix 💬 08:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Ladakhi would certainly be acceptable. But the language that was added was Hindi, which is only a recent entrant to Ladakh. Persian and Urdu have been in Ladakh for centuries. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3, fair enough, that's all I wanted to know. Not sure if a template exists for Ladakhi as of now but a bare bones IPA can be added. Prolix 💬 18:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about transliterations, but the Ladakhi original is spelt "La-dwags".[1] I have no idea how it is pronounced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Ladakhi, which is a loose knit term for Bauti (spoken by 35.7%), Tibetan (2.33%), and Ladakhi proper (2.06%), together comprising 40% of Ladakh's population, is also the proportion of Buddhists there; left out, however, are the mutually intelligible languages for which no loose knit term has been devised: Purkhi (33.61%), Shina (4.30%), Balti (3.58%), "Others"(2.68%), and Dardi (0.76%) spoken by Muslims, and together approximating 45%. Ladakh, after all, has Muslim plurality (46%). It is not clear at all that "Ladakhi" whatever it is, is the "premier" language of Ladakh. I have corrected the article; it now says that Ladakhi is the predominant (group of) language(s) of the Buddhist-dominated Leh district. There is no reason to add the "Ladakhi" pronunciation in the lead sentence; however, both the Bauti and Purkhi pronunciations can be added (if knownn) in a footnote in the manner, for example, of other languages in Kashmir lead sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

PS I forgot to add: if the rationale is no longer one of Ladakhi being the primary/predominant language of Ladakh, but of the language from which the English word "Ladakh" has descended, it too does not support inclusion in the lead. In the India page's lead sentence, for example, we do not add the Greek and Persian pronunciations "Indos" and "Hind" respectively of the two languages from which the word India has descended. Those belong to the Names/Etymology section and are already present on the Ladakh page. I think what we have now, the English IPA of Ladakh, is good enough, with a possible footnote if those of Bauti are Purki are known with reliability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Powers, John; Templeman, David (2012), Historical Dictionary of Tibet, Scarecrow Press, p. 387, ISBN 978-0-8108-7984-3

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bhauti nightmare[edit]

Toddy1, The census is a WP:PRIMARY source. Scholarly sources have long called the language as "Ladakhi". If people call it by a differerent name, and the census-takers have supported it for whatever reason, we don't necessarily follow them. To put "Bhauti" here, you need reliable linguists vouching for a separate language called "Bhauti" spoken in Ladakh. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The 23 January version you have reverted to was not the WP:STATUSQUO. There were significant alterations to the wording between 20 and January.
Do you have any sources, scholarly or otherwise, that identify the language the Indian census calls "Bauti" (their spelling) as being the same language as Ladakhi? Do you have any reliable sources to back your contentions?
One of the big problems with the relevant linguistic articles is that they seem to be written on the basis of an unwritten policy that anything verifiable must be deleted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) From a scholarly source:

The demand for the inclusion of Bhoti in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution is popular not only among the Monpas but also among other Tibetan Buddhist communities of India, and is justified on the ground that Bhoti is the link language of Zanskar, Ladakh, Spiti, Kinnaur, Uttar Kashi, Sikkim, Kalimpong, Darjeeling, Arunachal Pradesh and the entire Himalayan range of India (Gombu 2009: 5). Despite several variants of Tibetan existing as colloquial speech, Bhoti or Tibetan serves as the religious script and the language of the religious canon for Tibetan Buddhists in the trans-Himalayas.[1]

In other words, all these Himalyish people are claiming that "Bhoti" or "Bhauti" is their mother tongue, in order to get that language into the Eighth Schedule. This is language mobilisation, leading to false representations being made in the census. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The scholarly views are already represented in the Ladakhi language. That is what we should link to, and ignore all other labels that have been put into the census. Unless the scholars have said that there is another Tibetic language being spokenin Ladakh, we should club all of them under Ladakhi. (Bhotiya is a little different but again we don't know what people meant by "Bhotiya". But it a small number. So we don't need to worry.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gohain, Swargajyoti (2012), "Mobilising language, imagining region: Use of Bhoti in West Arunachal Pradesh", Contributions to Indian Sociology, 46 (3): 337–363, doi:10.1177/006996671204600304
Your deductions from that cannot be put in the article because they would be WP:OR.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
That is as per what is in the Ladakhi language page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no citation for the statement in that page: In the Indian census, most Ladakhi speakers registered their mother tongue under "Bhoti."
All I am asking for is that the article truthfully represents what is in sources. And that if there is interpretation (other than basic arithmetic) then that interpretation needs citations from reliable sources, as per WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
If that is how you want to operate, then please feel free to delete all the census info. Unless it is validated by WP:SECONDARY sources, we are not obliged to include it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Another revealing paper is:

From the editors' introduction:

It [Ladakhi] is not only under strong pressure from the official state language (Kashmiri), but also from the elitist attitudes of Ladakhi Buddhist scholars, who advocate literacy and literature only in Classical Tibetan [Bhoti] — which many feel ought to be used for all writing, but which in practice only a few individuals master — and who work against promoting literacy and literature in Ladakhi. According to Zeisler, the classical orthography and grammar which represent some ninth century varieties — about as close to Ladakhi as Latin is to modern Spanish — are not suitable for writing Ladakhi, but at the same time, there are strong protests against using Ladakhi for literacy and literature by those who want to maintain the high status of Classical Tibetan.

Ziegler says that Ladakhi is still written in the Classical Tibetan script, if at all it is written. The clergy opposes any innovations. Children probably learn this script in primary school, in which there are no texts other than religous ones, and then move on to using Urdu/Hindi/English, which they don't understand anyway. She says they pass exams by cramming, without understanding. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)